concluding that a construction company owed a duty of care to a tenant who was assaulted by someone hiding in an unlocked apartment, where the company was in charge of locking up the apartment
How later courts described this case
- concluding that a construction company owed a duty of care to a tenant who was assaulted by someone hiding in an unlocked apartment, where the company was in charge of locking up the apartment
- noting that special relationships have been found in cases of “landowner-invitee, businessman-patron, employer-employee, school district-pupil, hospital-patient, and carrier-passenger”
- “To prevail 10 on a negligence theory, a plaintiff must generally show that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of 11 care to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the legal cause of 12 the plaintiff’s injury; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages
- “To prevail on a negligence 6 theory, a plaintiff must generally show that: (1) the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff; 7 (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injury; 8 and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Springer, J.,
with whom, Steffen, C. J., agrees, dissenting:
I dissent because I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that “the alleged failure to lock the doors to vacant apartments created a foreseeable risk” that an assailant would use the unlocked apartments as an opportunity to leap out and unprovok-edly attack passersby. I do not see this risk as being foreseeable under the circumstances of this case. See Doe v. Linder Const. Co., Inc., 845 S.W.2d 173 (Tenn. 1992), cited in the majority opinion and which agrees with my position.